Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

According to the Gospel of Mark, the only evidence of a resurrection is the empty tomb.

According to the Gospel of Luke, the risen Jesus first appeared to two unnamed apostles as they were walking to Emmaus, then to the 11 surviving disciples in Jerusalem.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, the risen Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" after an angel had appeared to them at the tomb. Then he appeared to the 11 surviving disciples in Galilee - not Jerusalem.

According to the Gospel of John, the risen Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene in the garden Outside the tomb. Then he appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem. Later, he appeared to them at the "sea" of Galilee.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:5 - , the risen Christ first appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the 12 (Judas, too?), then to over 500 brethren, then to James, then to "all the apostles," then to Paul.

So, here we have five accounts, none of which agree. Were these witnesses at a trial, their conflicting testimony would be virtually useless.

As to Luke, your "first-class historian," he doesn't even claim to be an eyewitness (Lk. 1:1 - 4).

So, DOC, did Jesus appear to nobody - as Mak has it, first to two women, first to Mary Magdalene alone, first to two guys on the road to Emmaus, or first to Cephas? These can't all be true at the same time.

Did he specifically tell his disciples not to leave Jerusalem, as Luke has it, or did he tell them to specifically leave jerusalem to meet him in Galilee, as Matthew has it? It has to be one or another. They both can't be true.

And to think that theologians have the brass neck to call them the ''synoptic'' gospels.

This is not proof but it is some historical and logical evidence of a miracle resurrection.

It appears beyond doubt that you are totally unable to accept that there is no historical evidence of any miracle ever occurring.

None, DOC. Not one iota.

Your claim that there is logical evidence for such an event is too ludicrous to even bother with, other than using such a claim to press home the complete absence of anything even resembling logic in the endless and pathetic apologetics with which you've been spamming this Forum for years.

Besides "your" belief that the New Testament was written as fiction name some 1st century Judea fiction.

DOC, no matter how much you want to pretend that you haven't already failed dismally with this particularly vapid argument numerous times, the evidence of your past failures isn't going to disappear.

viz.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

DOC: You challenged posters on this thread to find a single work of fiction written in Judea from 1,000 BCE (or B.C., if you prefer) to the time of Jesus. A number of us have responded quite specifically. You have not really responded to these posts. Ignoring for the moment Job and Jonah, which I see as homiletic fiction...

Your opinion is noted . . .

You wield this phrase as though it's a magic wand that makes your opponents' arguments disappear just as you seem to believe, despite years of evidence to the contrary, that if you ignore a question for long enough it will similarly cease to exist.

As usual, you are quite wrong.

Here, for instance, is a non-disappearing post from September 2010 that's still awaiting your response:

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

This is another example of you trying to transplant your non-fiction reading, modern Christian ideology into Biblical Judea.

Some Ancient Jewish Novels:

Greek Esther
Susanna, Bel, and the Serpent
Tobit
Judith
The Marriage and Conversion of Aseneth

So you can set your opinion about Jonah aside for a minute and deal with the above works instead.

And remember that you have to eliminate all of them with actual evidence rather than handwaving if you hope to make your claim stand.

Or perhaps you'd rather just cut to the chase and explain why it is that fiction existed everywhere in the ancient world except for the one little Roman province where the books of the Bible were written.

Originally Posted by DOC

. . . but the historical figure Jesus . . .

Hasn't been shown to exist. Not by you, not by Ehrman and most certainly not by The World's Greatest Historian™.

You can't use a hypothetical figure as the proponent of a hypothesis.

Well you can, and I have no doubt that your opinion will be noted, but only as a joke.

Originally Posted by DOC

. . . implies he didn't think it was fiction when He talks of Jonah.

Your imaginary friend relates a story written by his imaginary friend about living for three days and nights inside a whale and you're arguing that this is non-fiction?

Do you have any idea at all how utterly ridiculous this is? Any?

Anyway, talking about the alleged Jesus talking about the alleged Jonah talking about the alleged three days and three nights in the alleged whale has reminded me of that story's relationship to the other yarn about the alleged Jesus' sojourn of three days and three nights in the alleged tomb while the alleged zombies were preparing for their street carnival thingy on Sunday afternoon.

...And I agree with you - it makes no sense at all for Christianity to exist without a resurrection...big print added

Then one has to wonder why it does indeed exist (and is the largest religion in the world) if there was no resurrection . . .

No, one doesn't have to wonder any such thing. It's nonsense based on two millenia of institutionalised propaganda conducted by megalomaniacal fiends with a psychopathic interest in exerting power over those whom they subjugated in the name of salvation from horrors that they themselves invented and bolstered in many, many cases by the most abominable systems of punishment ever devised by man.

Originally Posted by DOC

. . . especially when believing it in the 1st century could have got you crucified, beheaded, or covered with wax then impaled on a post and set on fire---not exactly a list of perks.

People in any age are completely free to believe whatever they will. Perhaps these punishments were meted out for something more than simple belief.

Maybe it was for annoying people to distraction with their endless, babbling proselytising.

None of the alleged witnesses wrote anything down, the gospels were not written until later.

How do you know they didn't write anything down. We have no signature of Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in the world at one time. Does that mean he never wrote his name?

No.

Originally Posted by DOC

ETA

Also we have no contemporary writings in existence concerning Alexander the Great, the man who conquered much of the world, including Jerusalem, except for one offhand remark in a letter, and one inscription. Does that mean no one else at the time of Alexander wrote anything down concerning him.

No.

And now a question for you:

How many miracles have been reliably attributed to Julius Cæsar and Alexander the Great?

And to think that theologians have the brass neck to call them the ''synoptic'' gospels.

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.

And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 15,887

Originally Posted by DOC

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.

And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

Start with TimCallahan's post #240...

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Then one has to wonder why it does indeed exist (and is the largest religion in the world) if there was no resurrection, especially when believing it in the 1st century could have got you crucified, beheaded, or covered with wax then impaled on a post and set on fire---not exactly a list of perks.

People forsake their family, friends, spouses, the country they were born in for the sake of what they believe in. People do all kinds of reckless things onto themselves and/or others for what they believe in.

But that does not make their beliefs to be true.

__________________"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.

Actually Jesus' empty tomb shortly after his death as reported by gospel writer Luke (who has been called a first-class historian by Sir William M. Ramsay) is some evidence of a miracle resurrection. It is not proof but it is some historical evidence that a miracle took place. ...

When a person like Luke, who has been called a first class historian by a famous archaeologist, writes something as fact, that is historical evidence.

Of course it is, DOC, of course it is.

Originally Posted by DOC

...

Also we have no contemporary writings in existence concerning Alexander the Great, the man who conquered much of the world, including Jerusalem, except for one offhand remark in a letter, and one inscription. ...

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed.

It's only dumb if you think the person who made the statement---archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging in biblical lands---is dumb.

i don't think he was dumb, i think 1) (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) that by 1906 he was missing a lot of things we learned in the mean time and (ETA) as pointed out by other driven by faith not fact 2) people which use a 100 year old info unquestionning without realizing they are outdated *are* dumb.

Dealt with in the previous thread you spammed with your recycled crap about Ramsay. Like the other lie you often repeat, that he was an atheist converted by the "evidence" he found.

Now about some evidence for your empty tomb claim? From something other than the holey babble.

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different.

Here is a great graphic showing the material shared among the Synoptic Gospels. If you scroll down a bit you will fin another, simpler graphic of the first hypothesis of the relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels. According to this view, Matthew was the first of the three, and Mark was based on Matthew. Finally, Luke was based on both Matthew and Mark. So, who was the author of this hypothesis? Was it an atheist? A skeptic? Perhaps a Gnostic Christian trying to discredit the canonical gospels? In fact, it was none of these. Rather, it was an orthodox Christian, St. Augustine. He came up with this hypothesis in the fifth century.

Of course, I'm not complaining. I'm merely pointing things out to you.

[quote=DOC;8870087]As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.[QUOTE/]

The contradictions I've pointed out to you are gross contradictions that cannot be harmonized, For example, either the women who met the angel at the tomb were so terrified that they ran away and told nobody of their encounter (Mark) or they told the disciples (Matthew). Either Jesus expressly gave the message he would meet the disciples in Galilee, and did so (Matthew) or he expressly told them not to leave Jerusalem (Luke). Either the risen Christ appeared to nobody (Mark), first appeared to women (Matthew and John) or did not appear to any of the women (Luke, 1 Corinthians).

[quote=DOC;8870087]And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.[QUOTE/]

I suspect they were under pressure to make what were essentially political compromises between various groups that each supported one gospel or the other.

Originally Posted by DOC

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

Of course, the contradictions I've pointed out to you are far greater than your example. Also, they weren't written by eyewitnesses.

DOC: Another problem with the veracity of the gospels is that they vary greatly from history. For example, according to Mt. 2:16 Herod the Great had all the male children two years of age and younger put to death, not only in Bethlehem, but in the regions surrounding the town, in an effort to kill the child destined, by the word of the Magi, to be king. Yet, Josephus, who speaks of Herod the Great and his evils in great detail, says nothing of this incident. This isn't something Josephus would have left out, and, had it happened, it's virtually impossible that it could have happened without his knowing of it.

Consider also Palm Sunday. What do we have to accept as true to accept this as a historical event? We have to believe that Jesus entered Jerusalem, hailed by crowds as a king, with the people crying "Hosannah!," meaning "Save us!" or, by extension, "Free us!" Yet, the Romans supposedly did nothing. However, we know from history that the Romans dealt harshly with putative messiahs, and that Pontius Pilatus was noted, not for his mercy or indecision, but rather for meting out gratuitous, excessive violence when his power was challenged.

You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed.

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

Of these, how many were a contemporary source? Not including the biblical ones of course.

If you keep hitching your intellectual wagon to the likes of Geisler, Turek and Strobel (with a nod to Ehrman when convenient) you will continue to have it upended in as many threads as you care to open.

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 15,887

Originally Posted by DOC

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

When do you intend to address the disharmony of the gospels TimCallahan raised in post #240?

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

You've got to admit the guy has a thing for detail. Scroll down this link a little ways until you get to a list of the 84 facts of Gospel writer Luke. For that matter so did gospel writer John, scroll down further until you get to the 59 facts of John.

You've got to admit the guy has a thing for detail. Scroll down this link until you get to the 84 facts of Gospel writer Luke. For that matter so did gospel writer John, scroll down further until you get to the 59 facts of John.

You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed.

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

It seems likely that dafydd has read the other threads in which your pathetic attempts to demonstrate the historical accuracy of these alleged sources have been completely shredded every single one of the scores of times you've made them.

Originally Posted by DOC

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

Likewise, anyone who has read the utter demolition of the fifth rate apologetics in that book (which you yourself haven't even read) which took place in TTTWND would have no hesitation in disagreeing with Ehrman.

When do you intend to address the disharmony of the gospels TimCallahan raised in post #240?

You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web. If you can't, let me know and I'll look when I get the time. There are as you probably noticed other posts directed toward me.

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 15,887

Originally Posted by DOC

You should be able to find logical explanations for any alleged contradictions in the gospels on the web. If you can't, let me know and I'll look when I get the time. There are as you probably noticed other posts directed toward me.

I am not the one who said:

"Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained." (quoting you)

I have a logical explanation for the differences among the gospels--even about such pivotal things as the birth of, or the death of, the supposed messiah. You said you could provide a "logical explanation" for "alleged contradictions in the NT". I am curious to see the hand-waving, special pleading, interpolations, redactions, and secondary/tertiary sources you would present as a "logical explanation".

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

I am prepared to believe that there was an itinerant preacher called Jesus. There was no divine superman called Jesus who came back to life. No evidence at all for that theory. Is that simple enough?

Why is it that so many non believers occupy their time trying to prove there is no God? Why bother?

True believers know, they have the knowledge within, and do not need to prove anything.

Matthew Chapter 16 :
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The Lord has said “My sheep know my voice” ....
Mosiah 6:10–13.
John 10:1–15.
John 21:15–17.
Isaiah 40:10–11.
The true sheep know His voice. The true Shepherd knows and owns His sheep and He calls them.

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

Concerning the hilited area: Now that you've made this assertion, back it up with specific facts, citations or links. In other words, you need to tell us who these nine sources are, so we can judge whether they were contemporaries with Jesus, near contemporaries or later writers.

As to Bart Ehrman and the historicity of Jesus, it's one thing to say that Jesus existed, quite another to say he walked on water, cast out demons, cured leper etc. or rose from the dead.

So I assume you believe Jesus is a myth even though we have 31 Christian and 9 non-Christian historical written sources for his life (total of 40) compared to 9 non-Christian and 1 Christian source (total of 10) for the life of Tiberius Caesar (the emperor during the life of Jesus).

And also, I assume you disagree with skeptic Bart Ehrman who said Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book.

Concerning the hilited area: Now that you've made this assertion, back it up with specific facts, citations or links. In other words, you need to tell us who these nine sources are, so we can judge whether they were contemporaries with Jesus, near contemporaries or later writers.

As to Bart Ehrman and the historicity of Jesus, it's one thing to say that Jesus existed, quite another to say he walked on water, cast out demons, cured leper etc. or rose from the dead.

Of these, how many were a contemporary source? Not including the biblical ones of course.

If you keep hitching your intellectual wagon to the likes of Geisler, Turek and Strobel (with a nod to Ehrman when convenient) you will continue to have it upended in as many threads as you care to open.

Most of the sources are probably DOC's JREF threads....

And most of them have been around long enough to be considered contemporary...